The Commonplace
Home Papers Evidence Explore Trends Syntheses Digests About 🎲 Workforce Futures
Direction, evidence grade, and study type are AI-generated labels (gpt-5-mini), not human-verified. Syntheses are LLM-written. "Tensions" are machine-detected candidates, not confirmed contradictions. A research-acceleration tool, not peer review. How this is built →

Coverage quality

A transparent audit of source coverage, PDF status, and whether papers have usable full text, summaries, abstracts, or no usable text.

1699
papers tracked
77.9%
complete full-text coverage
2
suspect full-text records

Text basis

This is the evidence basis available to summarization and synthesis: complete extracted full text when available, otherwise summary or abstract fallbacks.

Text available for papers in the knowledge base.
Text basisPapersShare
Complete full text 1323 77.9%
Suspect or incomplete full text 2 0.1%
Summary only 374 22.0%
Abstract only 0 0.0%
No usable text 0 0.0%

PDF status

PDF lifecycle status for all tracked papers.
StatusPapersShare
Downloaded132578.0%
Paywall18510.9%
Not Found905.3%
Pending814.8%
Error181.1%

Source coverage

Source-level paper counts and complete full-text rates.
SourcePapersFull textAssessed
arxiv 742 99.7% 100.0%
openalex 621 69.9% 100.0%
semantic_scholar 327 42.8% 100.0%
manual 9 100.0% 100.0%

What counts as full text?

A paper is counted as complete full text only when extracted text is long enough and does not contain known truncation or extraction-error markers. Short, noisy, or marker-laden text is flagged as suspect so it is not treated as reliable full-text coverage.